Read a full Gmail thread by thread_id from gmail_search, oldest message first. Bodies are truncated to 4,000 characters and up to 30 messages are returned.
Read a whole conversation (oldest first). Bodies are truncated to 4000 characters each; up to 30 messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | thread_id from gmail_search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint), and the description adds genuinely useful response behavior beyond them: bodies truncated to 4000 characters each and a 30-message cap. This is important context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the limits. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses ordering and truncation limits so the agent can reason about the returned data. It could note pagination or how to fetch beyond 30 messages, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (thread_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already noting it comes from gmail_search. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a whole conversation') plus scope (whole thread, oldest first). An agent can distinguish it from gmail_get_message (single message) and gmail_search (search) without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'whole conversation' versus a single message, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of using gmail_search first to obtain a thread_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.